ArticleJournal of dental sciences2024
Comparison of the accuracy of implant placement using a simple guide device and freehand surgery.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accuracy of Navigation and Robot-Assisted Systems for Dental Implant Placement: A Systematic Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Exploring Augmented Reality for Dental Implant Surgery: Feasibility of Using Smartphones as Navigation Tools.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: In clinical settings, there may be a need for a guide device that is simple and enhances the positioning accuracy of prosthetics. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of implant positioning using two methods: implant placement with a simple guide device (SGD) and freehand surgery. Materials and methods: A total of 103 patients were randomly assigned to the control or study group. In the control group, implant placement was performed using the freehand technique. In the study group, implant placement was conducted with an SGD. Implant positioning accuracy was assessed by measuring how much the central position, fixture angulation, and fixture position differed from the ideal implant position based on periapical radiographs and cone-beam computed tomography images. In patients with double implants, parallelism between the two fixtures was also measured. Results: There were 124 subjects, with 84 having single implants (42 in the control group and 42 in the study group) and 40 having double implants (20 in the control group and 20 in the study group). Utilization of the SGD for both single and double implant placement improved the accuracy of the central position, fixture angulation, and fixture position ( Conclusion: These findings suggest that use of an SGD leads to more accurate implant placement compared with freehand surgery taking into account the final prosthetic restoration.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.